A judge has halted a court case after a Muslim woman refused to lift her face
veil and prove her identity.

Judge Peter Murphy would not accept a plea from the 21-year-old defendant because he said he could not be sure that the person in the dock was who she claimed to be.

The woman, from Hackney in East London, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had refused to remove her niqab, claiming it was against her religious beliefs to allow any male other than her husband to see her face.

Judge Murphy said while respecting her religious beliefs the interests of justice had to remain paramount.

He said: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant.

“While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount.

“I can't, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain.”

He added: “It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant. The court would have no way to check on that.”

The woman was facing a charge of intimidating a witness during an alleged incident in Finsbury Park, north London in June.

She had been due to enter her plea when Judge Murphy asked her to remove her veil, she refused.

Her barrister, Claire Burtwistle, told the court that the woman was not prepared to show her face while there were men were in the room.

She explained: “In front of women, it is not an issue. It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face.”

Miss Burtwistle suggested one solution would be to allow a female police officer or a female prison guard to identify the defendant and confirm it to the court using police photographs taken when she was arrested.

Sarah Counsell, prosecuting, also told Judge Murphy that the police officer in charge of the case was satisfied he recognised the defendant.

But the judge rejected the compromises and said: “It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with.

“Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.

“In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my court room, that's going to come first.”

He added: “There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not. I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant. I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues.”

He then adjourned the case until September 12 to allow legal representations to be made over whether the defendant could remove her veil.

In 2007 guidelines issued by the Judicial Studies Board urged judges to remain sensitive when asking defendants to remove veils, suggesting there should be “no sense of obligation or pressure”.

The advice also suggested: “Any request to remove a veil should be accompanied by an explanation by the judge of their concern.”

Anyone refusing to adhere to a judge’s lawful request could be held in contempt of court.